From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Accounts Receivable Solutions, Inc. v. Mateo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 7, 2005
23 A.D.3d 321 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-09951.

November 7, 2005.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Parrino and Mateo Chiropractic, P.C., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Shapiro, J.), dated November 12, 2004, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to strike its answer pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Palmer Gabel, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Robert N. Palmer OF counsel), for appellant.

Perry Dean Freedman, Mount Kisco, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Dillon, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the order dated November 12, 2004, must be dismissed as the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment dated June 8, 2005, in the action ( see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). Appellate review of the intermediate order is now available only on appeal from the judgment.


Summaries of

Accounts Receivable Solutions, Inc. v. Mateo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 7, 2005
23 A.D.3d 321 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Accounts Receivable Solutions, Inc. v. Mateo

Case Details

Full title:ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Respondents, v. PARRINO AND…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 7, 2005

Citations

23 A.D.3d 321 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8259
804 N.Y.S.2d 757

Citing Cases

Simet v. the Coleman Company

We note at the outset that the appeal from the spoliation order in appeal No. 1 must be dismissed because…